Talk:The Litigators

Predicting the Future?

The book was released the day after Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs entitled Steve Jobs was released by Simon & Schuster. Jobs had died earlier that month and the release date was moved forward. !--Relevant because it impacts the marketability of the book. I.E., it will probably never be a #1 best seller as a hardcover.--

This information isn't relevant unless and until the novel is actually proven incapable of reaching #1 Bestseller status due to being edged out by Steve Jobs. When that happens, a paragraph explaining the effect of the Jobs biography might be relevant - until it does, this paragraph is irrelevant to the article. 69.174.87.20 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed section formatting)Agree. I don't see the relevance of mentioning another book's publication at all. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just removed mention of publication of "Steve Jobs", which has no relevance to this article. That is, none that has been brought out by a RS. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, TonyTheTiger will discuss this here. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an author who has had repeated number-one best sellers. I expect that next week we will see this atop the NYT fiction best seller list. However, it will not be atop the Amazon.com or iTunes lists. The reason is because since they do not separate fiction and non-fiction, the Jobs book overshadows them. In the next few weeks it will be appropriate to comment on its selling rankings and a footnote should be made to the Jobs book. The comment that has now been twice removed will be appropriate in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the ranking of the book on the NYT list is relevant and of interest to some readers, and can easily be sourced. However, the only way mentioning why it didn't reach a certain point on certain lists because of another book's popularity, or "how it effects the marketability" of this book, or whatever should only be included if it is put in proper context by relevant information from reliable sources that talk about marketability, the placement of Grisham's previous books on such lists, what effect if any the Jobs book had, etc. The sentences "The book was released the day after Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs entitled Steve Jobs was released by Simon & Schuster. Jobs had died earlier that month and the release date was moved forward." tells the reader nothing about why this information is worth noting. I agree with IP that it would need something from a RS explaining the significance of the Jobs book in relation to the release of this book, which would be great. But the !note wouldn't seem to satisfy WP:V because it cites no sources and it's mostly the opinion of the note writer. You may be right about the Jobs book "overshadowing" Grisham on Amazon and itunes, but you need to establish notability and verifiability with RS rather than OR or opinion to state something like that in the article. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess if we can source that the Jobs book was #1 on Amazon and iTunes, it would make the statement relevant. I know I will be able to source NYT if it is #1. It will be a matter of sourcing that it was or was not #1 on other notable lists like iTunes, Amazon or maybe national newspapers like Wall Street Journal and USA Today. I am not sure how to source, how many of his past books have been #1 best sellers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Litigators/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 15:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• The last sentence of the first paragraph should have a reference.
• The entire 2nd paragraph needs references.
  • I have decided to go with the uncited WP:LEAD format, where all content is cited in the main body and summarized in the LEAD without citation there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fine. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Background

None found.

Publication

None found.

Plot summary

• How about just "Plot" for the section?
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think that the plot should be cleaned out, as it's very long.
  • Further specific feedback requested. P.S. when Wikipedia:Peer review/The Litigators/archive1 noted that the plot was deficient, I expanded it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I saw that, and considering the number of pages and other users, it's fine. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

List of characters

None found.

Critical review

None found.

Commercial success

None found.

Comments

• On hold now (7 days).
• No dead links

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Excessively detailed plot

@Ebe123:, you were right in your initial note in the GA that the plot section is excessively long. Now it is so long and detailed that the reader doesn't have to read the book. @TonyTheTiger: please cut it down. Three, max four, paragraphs are enough to convey the overall idea. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Getting a ping about a 7-8 year-old discussion! The plot summary is now twice the size as it was (and was already long). I think I was too deferrential in the review looking back at it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ebe123: Hey, I just read the book! And I'm probably like a lot of people who check in with Wikipedia to read some background and analysis on books we've just finished. Thanks for your reply. If TonyTheTiger doesn't cut this down, I will. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, Have at it. The last 10KB of the article is after my involvement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)